Tweet
~~Far from a successful attempt to enter the jetliner market the CV-880 was nonetheless a beauty, cruelly squeezed to death by the DC-8 and 707 (and especially Boeing's 720). The Convair 880 and 990 have been well represented in 1:400 with no less than 30 releases of the 880. The breakdown by manufacturer is:
- Aeroclassics - 24 (including 4 made for Gemini)
- Apollo / Witty Wings - 4
- Herpa - 2
Apollo / Witty have only recently entered the fray and have admittedly been creating what are effectively re-releases however some of the older AC releases are hard to find so that's not necessarily as bad thing. As can be seen from my Cathay thread I have just received the latest pair of Apollo releases so its a good time to do a comparison with the Aeroclassics mould.
Say what you like about Witty but they've been making some good bits recently here and there. They have easily the best Tristar mould, a great 747-200 and now a lovely CV-880 too. And despite suggestions that they have stolen moulds in the past this CV-880 is NOT a direct copy of the Aeroclassics mould.
To allow easier comparison here's the real thing:
So let's take a look at the 3 moulds.
Herpa - I don't own either of these and if you check the database its easy to see why! The nose is fat and snoopyish, the nosegear too small and the tail and end of fuselage oversized and boxy. Its a rubbish mould and scores a big fat 1 out of 5 from me.
Aeroclassics - I've got 9 880s using this mould which is excellent. I haven't any major misgivings about it at all except that as with many slightly older moulds the wing/fuselage seam is a bit obvious as you can see from the below photo:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison Aeroclassics Bottom by rstretton, on Flickr
Apollo / Witty - The new contender is a really nice addition. Again I have no major issues with the mould. The wing seam is an improvement on the AC mould. As you'd expect with a newer mould the wings attach to the fuselage as separate pieces:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison Apollo Bottom by rstretton, on Flickr
There are other obvious differences between the AC and Witty moulds - mostly at the nose end. The Apollo / Witty nose is more pointed and slimmer (though I've noticed the Cathay livery accentuates this (check the real photo above)) and the Witty nosegear is clearly different too (larger gear door and different detailing). Below we have VIASA/KLM Aeroclassics on the left and Apollo Cathay on the right:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on Flickr
One minor bad point about the Witty is there appears to be a seamlike line running along the side of the engines - though to be fair it is very feint and hard to see. I'm not sure which I think is 'better' as both are very good in my opinion and I'm certainly glad to have been able to get the two Cathays for which the Aeroclassics versions are rare. I'm certainly interested in picking up the Apollo Japan Airlines version if I get the chanc.
What do you think?
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on Flickr
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on Flickr
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on Flickr
- Aeroclassics - 24 (including 4 made for Gemini)
- Apollo / Witty Wings - 4
- Herpa - 2
Apollo / Witty have only recently entered the fray and have admittedly been creating what are effectively re-releases however some of the older AC releases are hard to find so that's not necessarily as bad thing. As can be seen from my Cathay thread I have just received the latest pair of Apollo releases so its a good time to do a comparison with the Aeroclassics mould.
Say what you like about Witty but they've been making some good bits recently here and there. They have easily the best Tristar mould, a great 747-200 and now a lovely CV-880 too. And despite suggestions that they have stolen moulds in the past this CV-880 is NOT a direct copy of the Aeroclassics mould.
To allow easier comparison here's the real thing:
So let's take a look at the 3 moulds.
Herpa - I don't own either of these and if you check the database its easy to see why! The nose is fat and snoopyish, the nosegear too small and the tail and end of fuselage oversized and boxy. Its a rubbish mould and scores a big fat 1 out of 5 from me.
Aeroclassics - I've got 9 880s using this mould which is excellent. I haven't any major misgivings about it at all except that as with many slightly older moulds the wing/fuselage seam is a bit obvious as you can see from the below photo:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison Aeroclassics Bottom by rstretton, on FlickrApollo / Witty - The new contender is a really nice addition. Again I have no major issues with the mould. The wing seam is an improvement on the AC mould. As you'd expect with a newer mould the wings attach to the fuselage as separate pieces:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison Apollo Bottom by rstretton, on FlickrThere are other obvious differences between the AC and Witty moulds - mostly at the nose end. The Apollo / Witty nose is more pointed and slimmer (though I've noticed the Cathay livery accentuates this (check the real photo above)) and the Witty nosegear is clearly different too (larger gear door and different detailing). Below we have VIASA/KLM Aeroclassics on the left and Apollo Cathay on the right:
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on FlickrOne minor bad point about the Witty is there appears to be a seamlike line running along the side of the engines - though to be fair it is very feint and hard to see. I'm not sure which I think is 'better' as both are very good in my opinion and I'm certainly glad to have been able to get the two Cathays for which the Aeroclassics versions are rare. I'm certainly interested in picking up the Apollo Japan Airlines version if I get the chanc.
What do you think?
Convair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on FlickrConvair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on FlickrConvair CV-880 Mould Comparison by rstretton, on Flickr
Comment